IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO SPICE COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE- 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Is Interconnected With Ground No.Ii. Hence, They Are Taken Up Together For Disposal.

section 194H would count as income for the agents themselves. It is at this point that settlement is made fully and finally, in line with clause 7.2 of the PSA. 48. The only remaining objection from the Assessees concerns Section 216 of the Contract Act. To appropriately appreciate the scope of the provision, a combined reading of both

DCIT TDS 1(1), MUMBAI vs. BHARAT BUSINESS CHANNELS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in both the years are allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

194H of the Act.' 11. There is no, and there cannot be any, dispute about the fundamental legal position that in the hierarchical judicial system, that we have in our country, lower tiers of judicial hierarchy has to respectfully follow the views expressed by the higher tiers of judicial hierarchy. In the case of ACIT Vs Dunlop India Limited

DCIT(TDS)OSD-1(2), MUMBAI, CUMBALLA HILL vs. HOUSE OF ANITA DONGRE PVT LTD, BANDRA WEST

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

194H of the Act, on account of purported commission payments to franchisees/LFS, and Section 194-I of the Act, treating the discounts offered to LFS as rent for occupation of a demarcated space within the LFS premises. The Ld. AO contended that the transaction between the assessee and the franchisees/LFS was in the nature of a principal-agent relationship

DCIT(TDS)OSD-1(2), MUMBAI, CUMBALLA HILL vs. HOUSE OF ANITA DONGRE PVT LTD, BANDRA WEST

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

194H of the Act, on account of purported commission payments to franchisees/LFS, and Section 194-I of the Act, treating the discounts offered to LFS as rent for occupation of a demarcated space within the LFS premises. The Ld. AO contended that the transaction between the assessee and the franchisees/LFS was in the nature of a principal-agent relationship

DCIT(TDS)-1(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HOUSE OF ANITA DONGRE PVT LTD, BANDRA WEST

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

194H of the Act, on account of purported commission payments to franchisees/LFS, and Section 194-I of the Act, treating the discounts offered to LFS as rent for occupation of a demarcated space within the LFS premises. The Ld. AO contended that the transaction between the assessee and the franchisees/LFS was in the nature of a principal-agent relationship

ASUS INDIA PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIRCLE- 9 (1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

194H of the Act. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has also approved the aforesaid decision of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the limited issue before us is the validity of disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In view of the aforesaid, we decline to entertain the fresh plea of learned Departmental Representative. The decisions cited by the learned Departmental

ASST CIT CC-22, MUMBAI vs. JAWAHAR PUROHIT, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

194H- Brokerage 3,60,000 Expenses/ Commission Section 194J – Professional 3,00,000 Charges Section 194J – Supervision 11,55,500 Charges 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct 5,46,850/- Expenses @ 20% of Rs. 2,734,243 as discussed above 5. Adhoc Disallwance for indirect 5,71,717 Expenses @ 20% of Rs. 2,858,579 as discussed above

DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI vs. M.R. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

194H- Brokerage 3,60,000 Expenses/ Commission Section 194J – Professional 3,00,000 Charges Section 194J – Supervision 11,55,500 Charges 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct 5,46,850/- Expenses @ 20% of Rs. 2,734,243 as discussed above 5. Adhoc Disallwance for indirect 5,71,717 Expenses @ 20% of Rs. 2,858,579 as discussed above

ACIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI vs. M.R. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

194H- Brokerage 3,60,000 Expenses/ Commission Section 194J – Professional 3,00,000 Charges Section 194J – Supervision 11,55,500 Charges 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct 5,46,850/- Expenses @ 20% of Rs. 2,734,243 as discussed above 5. Adhoc Disallwance for indirect 5,71,717 Expenses @ 20% of Rs. 2,858,579 as discussed above

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

194H- Brokerage 3,60,000 Expenses/ Commission Section 194J – Professional 3,00,000 Charges Section 194J – Supervision 11,55,500 Charges 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct 5,46,850/- Expenses @ 20% of Rs. 2,734,243 as discussed above 5. Adhoc Disallwance for indirect 5,71,717 Expenses @ 20% of Rs. 2,858,579 as discussed above

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

194H- Brokerage 3,60,000 Expenses/ Commission Section 194J – Professional 3,00,000 Charges Section 194J – Supervision 11,55,500 Charges 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct 5,46,850/- Expenses @ 20% of Rs. 2,734,243 as discussed above 5. Adhoc Disallwance for indirect 5,71,717 Expenses @ 20% of Rs. 2,858,579 as discussed above

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

194H- Brokerage 3,60,000 Expenses/ Commission Section 194J – Professional 3,00,000 Charges Section 194J – Supervision 11,55,500 Charges 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct 5,46,850/- Expenses @ 20% of Rs. 2,734,243 as discussed above 5. Adhoc Disallwance for indirect 5,71,717 Expenses @ 20% of Rs. 2,858,579 as discussed above

M. R. CONSTRUCTION,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

194H- Brokerage 3,60,000 Expenses/ Commission Section 194J – Professional 3,00,000 Charges Section 194J – Supervision 11,55,500 Charges 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct 5,46,850/- Expenses @ 20% of Rs. 2,734,243 as discussed above 5. Adhoc Disallwance for indirect 5,71,717 Expenses @ 20% of Rs. 2,858,579 as discussed above

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

194H- Brokerage 3,60,000 Expenses/ Commission Section 194J – Professional 3,00,000 Charges Section 194J – Supervision 11,55,500 Charges 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct 5,46,850/- Expenses @ 20% of Rs. 2,734,243 as discussed above 5. Adhoc Disallwance for indirect 5,71,717 Expenses @ 20% of Rs. 2,858,579 as discussed above

DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI vs. M.R. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

194H- Brokerage 3,60,000 Expenses/ Commission Section 194J – Professional 3,00,000 Charges Section 194J – Supervision 11,55,500 Charges 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct 5,46,850/- Expenses @ 20% of Rs. 2,734,243 as discussed above 5. Adhoc Disallwance for indirect 5,71,717 Expenses @ 20% of Rs. 2,858,579 as discussed above

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

194H- Brokerage 3,60,000 Expenses/ Commission Section 194J – Professional 3,00,000 Charges Section 194J – Supervision 11,55,500 Charges 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct 5,46,850/- Expenses @ 20% of Rs. 2,734,243 as discussed above 5. Adhoc Disallwance for indirect 5,71,717 Expenses @ 20% of Rs. 2,858,579 as discussed above

M.R. CONSTRUCTION,.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

194H- Brokerage 3,60,000 Expenses/ Commission Section 194J – Professional 3,00,000 Charges Section 194J – Supervision 11,55,500 Charges 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct 5,46,850/- Expenses @ 20% of Rs. 2,734,243 as discussed above 5. Adhoc Disallwance for indirect 5,71,717 Expenses @ 20% of Rs. 2,858,579 as discussed above

M.R. CONSTRUCTION,.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

194H- Brokerage 3,60,000 Expenses/ Commission Section 194J – Professional 3,00,000 Charges Section 194J – Supervision 11,55,500 Charges 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct 5,46,850/- Expenses @ 20% of Rs. 2,734,243 as discussed above 5. Adhoc Disallwance for indirect 5,71,717 Expenses @ 20% of Rs. 2,858,579 as discussed above

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

194H- Brokerage 3,60,000 Expenses/ Commission Section 194J – Professional 3,00,000 Charges Section 194J – Supervision 11,55,500 Charges 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct 5,46,850/- Expenses @ 20% of Rs. 2,734,243 as discussed above 5. Adhoc Disallwance for indirect 5,71,717 Expenses @ 20% of Rs. 2,858,579 as discussed above